A MOTHER has told how her daughter is scared to go out alone after a man chased her and school friends and demanded sexual favours from them.

The three teenage girls were forced to hide in a bush for safety after they were shouted at by De Jesus Gomes while walking in the street.

After Gomes’ conviction at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday for using threatening and abusive behaviour, one of his victim’s mothers spoke out about the impact of the incident on her child.

She says her daughter has been forced to take time off school because of panic attacks and anxiety.

And the mother, who cannot be named to protect the identity of her daughter, told the Oxford Mail: “She’s very shocked and shaken up. She had a panic attack and I had to speak to the doctors.

“She wasn’t in school after it and she’s scared to go out on her own now.”

Speaking of her daughter having to give evidence in court, she said: “She was very nervous and stressed.

“She got teary but I’m just glad it’s all over now and she can forget about it.”

After spending the morning shopping on Sunday, March 23, the 13-year-old girls were leaving Templars Square shopping centre when the incident happened.

Promoted stories

The mother explained: “They were leaving the shopping centre, and were just by the John Allen Centre car park. There was a man across the main street in some garages.” He then shouted at the girls, demanding sexual favours.

The victim’s mother said: “The girls were shocked by what they had heard, so they shouted “What?”.

“The man then replied: ‘We’re coming to get you.’. Not ‘I’m,’ ‘we’re’. Because they thought there were more men like him, they started running, and he started chasing them.”

Running down Rymers Lane, the frightened girls then hid in a bush and called the police.

Gomes, 25, of no fixed address, was arrested at the sceneAfter being dound guilty, he was fined £100, ordered to pay £100 in compensation, £200 court costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.

She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything.

Share article

“Let’s hope he doesn’t do it to anybody else and seriously hurt someone. At least he got a guilty verdict.”

Our top stories:

Promoted Stories

Comments (8)

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!Lord Palmerstone

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

Score: -4

Oxonian says...10:18am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year![/p][/quote]I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?
The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.Oxonian

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

Score: -1

Lord Palmerstone says...11:35am Fri 4 Jul 14

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

Indeed he might. Long way to come to bestow his benefits upon us. Perhaps he could return whence he came to spread the gospel amongst the unfortunate Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans etc etc. For my part I'll undertake not to spout abuse to young females in Sao Paulo . Deal?

[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year![/p][/quote]I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?
The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.[/p][/quote]Indeed he might. Long way to come to bestow his benefits upon us. Perhaps he could return whence he came to spread the gospel amongst the unfortunate Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans etc etc.
For my part I'll undertake not to spout abuse to young females in Sao Paulo . Deal?Lord Palmerstone

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

Indeed he might. Long way to come to bestow his benefits upon us. Perhaps he could return whence he came to spread the gospel amongst the unfortunate Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans etc etc. For my part I'll undertake not to spout abuse to young females in Sao Paulo . Deal?

Score: 1

King Joke says...12:52pm Fri 4 Jul 14

The guy clearly has issues with his mental health. Banging him up, without treatment will not solve the problem as he'll come out and do the same. His mental health is unlikely to improve under the battering that nonces undergo in prison. Where can he be encouraged or forced to get treatment?

The guy clearly has issues with his mental health. Banging him up, without treatment will not solve the problem as he'll come out and do the same. His mental health is unlikely to improve under the battering that nonces undergo in prison. Where can he be encouraged or forced to get treatment?King Joke

The guy clearly has issues with his mental health. Banging him up, without treatment will not solve the problem as he'll come out and do the same. His mental health is unlikely to improve under the battering that nonces undergo in prison. Where can he be encouraged or forced to get treatment?

Score: -1

CtrlAltTab says...12:58pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year![/p][/quote]I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?
The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.[/p][/quote]"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?"
Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland).
Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!CtrlAltTab

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

Score: -1

Lord Palmerstone says...3:10pm Fri 4 Jul 14

CtrlAltTab wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place. And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.

[quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year![/p][/quote]I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?
The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.[/p][/quote]"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?"
Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland).
Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something![/p][/quote]I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place.
And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.Lord Palmerstone

CtrlAltTab wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place. And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.

Score: 1

CtrlAltTab says...10:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

CtrlAltTab wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place. And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.

And as per normal, you accuse others of things that they aren't. Seriously, why do you not just give making yourself look like a complete idiot? And as a compliment, you do do it so well. As for the interpretation of law, maybe you should have put the correct term but I think you should try and learn to read first...... "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both." That doesn't say it carries 6 months, it says no more than 6 months. Anonymity of the Internet is your only refuge, in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism and the usual remarks you constantly make about others! Also, a follower? I think not, you are the idiot on the street that everyone avoids, I am one of them.

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough.
She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything"
Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year![/p][/quote]I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?
The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.[/p][/quote]"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?"
Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland).
Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something![/p][/quote]I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place.
And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.[/p][/quote]And as per normal, you accuse others of things that they aren't.
Seriously, why do you not just give making yourself look like a complete idiot? And as a compliment, you do do it so well.
As for the interpretation of law, maybe you should have put the correct term but I think you should try and learn to read first......
"A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."
That doesn't say it carries 6 months, it says no more than 6 months.
Anonymity of the Internet is your only refuge, in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism and the usual remarks you constantly make about others!
Also, a follower? I think not, you are the idiot on the street that everyone avoids, I am one of them.CtrlAltTab

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

CtrlAltTab wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

"For the victim’s mother, this is not punishment enough. She said: “I’m gobsmacked he didn’t get probation or anything" Mother is right. The charge was wrong. He would, on the facts published, have been convicted of intentional harassment under Section 4A of the 1986 Act, which carries 6 months. This would , of course, have put the court in a quandary because he's a derelict who would not likely turn up for probation. So maybe 2 months prison with a suitable Restraining Order so that he could have 8 months the next time. His name suggests that we have the benefit of his presence in the City from the Iberian peninsula, thanks to the wonders of the Berlin-Paris Axis. Referendum next year!

I agree that this man did obnoxious things, but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe? The man's name doesn't necessarily mean that he comes from Spain or Portugal ("the Iberian peninsula"). He might well come from one of the Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries in South America.

"but why does Lord Palmerstone have to add a gratuitous slur on someone who he assumes to be an immigrant from Europe?" Because if you read most of his comments, you will find he is a bigot with no tolerance towards others from anything other than the UK (mainland). Also he always interprets the law to what he thinks should be, though morally he has a point on the basis tat this man should have been charged with something!

I'm delighted to have a follower. Even more delighted you think I'm a Court of Appeal Judge. But I must disabuse you. Her Majesty hasn't seen fit to authorise me to "interpret the law", I stated what was the appropriate charge in this case because it was what the evidence , as given in the report, justified. The charge of Section 5 Public Order Act was not appropriate because this creature sustained a verbal attack with a sexual motive on young females. He wasn't just the usual derelict "gobbing off". And yes, like most people I think we've enough of our own street garbage without needing to import any from Iberia, South America or indeed Goa, yet another Portuguese language place. And yes I'm a "bigot" because that is the word that left wing numpties like you use for those who hold the bankrupt dogmas of socialism in profound contempt.

And as per normal, you accuse others of things that they aren't. Seriously, why do you not just give making yourself look like a complete idiot? And as a compliment, you do do it so well. As for the interpretation of law, maybe you should have put the correct term but I think you should try and learn to read first...... "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both." That doesn't say it carries 6 months, it says no more than 6 months. Anonymity of the Internet is your only refuge, in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism and the usual remarks you constantly make about others! Also, a follower? I think not, you are the idiot on the street that everyone avoids, I am one of them.

Score: 1

Lord Palmerstone says...2:27am Sat 5 Jul 14

in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism . You missed out "homophobia and "prejudice". Is your socialist creed so barren that all you can do is feeble-minded abuse? I suppose that if someone can't even grasp that to say an offence "carries 6 months" means it carries a prison sentence up to 6 months, we're in barren territory. However as to whether you're an idiot on the street ,as you say, might be taking self-criticism a bit far.

in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism . You missed out "homophobia and "prejudice". Is your socialist creed so barren that all you can do is feeble-minded abuse? I suppose that if someone can't even grasp that to say an offence "carries 6 months" means it carries a prison sentence up to 6 months, we're in barren territory.
However as to whether you're an idiot on the street ,as you say, might be taking self-criticism a bit far.Lord Palmerstone

in the real world you would be arrested for bigotry, racism . You missed out "homophobia and "prejudice". Is your socialist creed so barren that all you can do is feeble-minded abuse? I suppose that if someone can't even grasp that to say an offence "carries 6 months" means it carries a prison sentence up to 6 months, we're in barren territory. However as to whether you're an idiot on the street ,as you say, might be taking self-criticism a bit far.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here